The Litvinenko Inquiry

The Litvinenko Inquiry
6.95 The room was first tested on 25 November 2006, more than a month after the meeting
had taken place. Unsurprisingly, Mr Reilly’s evidence was that the chairs in the room
could have been moved during the intervening period. 74 But the same was not true of
the green baize cloth on the table. Mr Reilly said that John Holmes (who, as I have
described above, ran both Erinys and Titon International) was always insistent that
the baize should not be removed from the table. 75 There was, therefore, no reason
to think that the baize had been moved between mid October when the meeting took
place and late November when the room was tested.
6.96 That is a highly significant consideration. As is apparent from the plan, the highest
level of contamination found in the room was on a patch of the green baize at one end
of the table (shown in purple in the plan). Comparison with Mr Reilly’s plan shows that
this area was located between the positions in which Mr Lugovoy and Mr Litvinenko
were sitting.
6.97 A1’s evidence about the contamination in the Erinys boardroom was that the small
‘purple’ patch of contamination on the baize cloth represented primary contamination.
In other words, as I have said, the reading was so high that it must have been caused
by a primary source of polonium being exposed to the environment in that area. She
said the scientific evidence provided strong support for this conclusion. Her view was
that the rest of the contamination in the room was secondary contamination. 76
6.98 Mr Reilly told me that the meeting on 16 October was probably the last time that he
saw Mr Litvinenko. Although Mr Reilly thought that he might have met Mr Lugovoy
and/or Mr Kovtun again before Mr Litvinenko’s death (there is no other evidence of
any such meetings), 77 he was clear that Mr Litvinenko was not present at any such
meetings. 78
6.99 Mr Reilly referred in the course of his evidence to radiation testing that was undertaken
at his house. 79 The contamination schedule indicates that secondary contamination
was found on some of Mr Reilly’s clothing, and also on the steering wheel of his
car. 80 Mr Reilly also mentioned that he had a sudden illness on 26 October 2006, with
symptoms of migraine and sickness. 81 I am not in a position to make any findings as
to whether this illness was caused in any way by the contamination that had been left
in the Erinys boardroom.
6.100 There is one further matter that I should mention before leaving this subject. Both
Mr Holmes and Mr Attew gave evidence that there had been a break in at the offices
at 25 Grosvenor Street in mid June 2006. 82 Considerable force was used to gain
entrance to the offices, but nothing was taken. Both men thought, with hindsight, that
the break in may have been linked to Mr Litvinenko’s case. Mr Attew said, “In my
business, that’s a reconnaissance”.
74
Reilly 10/90
75
Reilly 10/105-106
76
A1 20/27-31
77
Mascall 29/73-75
78
Reilly 10/117-123
79
Reilly 10/145-146
80
INQ017934 (pages 36-38)
81
Reilly 10/119-121
82
Holmes 7/68-70; Attew 13/67-70
130